Is it true the COOKIES cannot be harmful?

[Berryracer]

I have always preferred SUPERAntiSpyware over Malwarebytes Anti-Malware because SAS also detects harmful/tracking cookies which MBAM totally ignores..

But a moderator @ the Kaspersky Forums told me I am wrong and was like...

=====================================================

Berryracer says:
What I like about SUPERAntiSpyware Pro more than Malwarebytes Anti-Malware is that it also scans for harmful browser cookies also known as tracking cookies and removes them where as Malwarebytes Anti-Malware totally ignores those.

Richbuff (a moderator @ the Kaspersky Forums) says:

...because they are not harmful.

If you cruise real, bona fide disinfection forums, you will see that Mbam has completely and totally usurped the position that Sas once enjoyed.

There are several reasons for this. One reason is that people who are doing disinfections have no reason to view the lengthy list of cookies and websites that the cookies came from. No reason. None. To view such. At all. Whatsoever.

There are other reasons that are more important for why MBAM has totally supplanted SAS, but they are off-topic at this forum.

=====================================================

Is he right? Is MBAM better than SAS and SAS is removing stuff that won't harm me or leave tracking effects?

I never usually clear my cookies which is why I assumed SAS does a better job to clean the bad ones....

please englighten teh meh

 

[lxskllr]

Cookies can track where you go. I allow 1st party, and block 3rd party cookies. I think that's good enough, and don't use any other kind of cleaner.

 

[Bubbaleone]

^ +1

 

[Berryracer]

Cookies can track where you go. I allow 1st party, and block 3rd party cookies. I think that's good enough, and don't use any other kind of cleaner.

Sorry for the n00b question but you lost me there bro.

Kindly elaborate with what you really mean and how to do it anyway

 

[General Kenobi]

Depends on how you understand harmful. I think that tracking is just that, although some "security experts" don't seem to care as long as your machine isn't getting infected. SAS is a valid piece of software.

 

[lxskllr]

Sorry for the n00b question but you lost me there bro.

Kindly elaborate with what you really mean and how to do it anyway

AFAIC 3rd parties have no business setting things on my machine, so I block those cookies. First party cookies your trading convenience for a privacy reduction. It shouldn't be a problem if you trust the sites you visit, and if you don't trust them, why are you visiting?

 

[shimpster]

I have always preferred SUPERAntiSpyware over Malwarebytes Anti-Malware because SAS also detects harmful/tracking cookies which MBAM totally ignores..

But a moderator @ the Kaspersky Forums told me I am wrong and was like...

=====================================================


=====================================================

Is he right? Is MBAM better than SAS and SAS is removing stuff that won't harm me or leave tracking effects?

I never usually clear my cookies which is why I assumed SAS does a better job to clean the bad ones....

please englighten teh meh

Here is a review malwarebytes vs superantispyware

http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-adware-spyware-scumware-remover.htm

 

[corkyg]

Most cookies I have seen are beneficial. Some are not. Pay attention to them and assume nothing.

 

[Berryracer]

AFAIC 3rd parties have no business setting things on my machine, so I block those cookies. First party cookies your trading convenience for a privacy reduction. It shouldn't be a problem if you trust the sites you visit, and if you don't trust them, why are you visiting?

Thank you very much sir!

You are the most helpful member on these forums!

 

[Blain]

Is it true the COOKIES cannot be harmful?

True... Not all cookies are placed for malicious purposes.
If you have auto log-in enabled for this forum. cookies are saving you time.